Thursday, September 2, 2010

The eco-terrorist and the silence of the greens

James Taranto, "Best of the Web":

From the always-excellent Taranto, an even more excellent than usual piece on the latest eco-loon cum terrorist, and the curious silence, so far, from the usual lefty suspects on any connection between their "shockingly irresponsible", extremist rhetoric and the sad spectacle at the Discovery Channel yesterday.  To be contrasted with the media's repeated attempts to create links between any violent incident and, say, the Tea Party. And contrasted too with the "nothing to see here" approach of Jesse Walker, for example, at Reason's "hit & run" -- who may well be making a partially commendable effort to restrain from making partisan hay from the tragedy, but sometimes you have to whack a biased media over the head to get their attention, and this just puts them back to sleep.


  1. Stanley Fish is not exactly an eco-loon leftie, metamorf. While I am not entirely sympathetic to Fish's POV, his point re an increase in anti-muslim bigotry (and "hatecrimes") doesn't seem that radical. Limbaugh for one makes the yahoos (and yahooettes) in the Heartland swoon when he barks "Imam Hussein Obama".

    I don't generally approve of the d-Kos PC rhetoric, but many populist-rightist demogogues do pander to the yahoo's seething hatred of Islam--some of the xtian nutbags now claim Islam's demonic, etc. And that demonizing's seen among...jewish writers as well. Goldberg's typical half-baked justification of not being concerned about the attack on the muslim cabbie was...typical. Really, there may be muslim demons. In America, however, they're substantially outnumbered by the judeo-christian demons--ie any form of Abrahamic religion tends to madness.

  2. ...(continued).

    Also-- the WSJ hack's suggestion that Krugman or Gore's rhetoric on global warming resulted in Lee's hysteria and criminal acts should be dismissed (if not ridiculed)--it's the usual "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" beloved by rabblerousing writers, right, or left. Look, folks, what this eco-leftie rhetoric results in! Gore's not really a leftist, anyway (which is to say, the AGW claims should be considered separate from Gore's politics).

  3. Gore's an eco-loon himself, and Stanley Fish isn't noted for consistency. Speaking of consistency, how about applying a little to the cabbie attack and the Discovery Channel event, J?

    Oh, and those "judeo-christian demons" -- who are they? The ones who hijack Muslim airliners and fly them into densely populated Islamic symbols? Those ones? Or maybe you're thinking of the judeo-christian band of thugs who held a bunch of Muslim children hostage, murdering a number of them? Or maybe the ones that blow up Islamic gathering places, trains, subways, hotels, etc., striving to maximize the slaughter of Muslims? Well, maybe not. Note that at least the last case is something that really does happen -- only problem is that it's other Muslims killing Muslims. Maybe you need to rethink your problem with Jews and Chistians.

  4. Oh, and those "judeo-christian demons" -- who are they? The ones who hijack Muslim airliners and fly them into densely populated Islamic symbols?

    Judeo-christian demons?--that'd be something like... the Bush administration, metamorf. Look in the Pictionary (the right one, at least) and under "judeo-christian demons", it points to Dubya and his cabinet, Cheney, his neo-con advisers, and their corporate liberal supporters (the Clintons, Feinstein, et al).

    Bush even admitted at one point during the Iraqi war he consulted the wit and wisdom of...the Book of Revelation for political guidance, did he not? Holy blood red heifer, batman. Google around for some of the Founding fathers' skeptical thoughts on that madman's vision ( regard to biblical authority itself)

    Again,I wager even Miss Rand would have objected to Bush's ties to the fundamentalists and his biblical rhetoric, as well as to the misrepresentations of the WMDs used asjustification for the IWE--as a few level-headed Objectivists did (and continue to...Peikoff himself does not support the likes of Hagees, or Glenn Becks...) . The divine Miss Ayn herself sort of valued the secular aspects of the Constitution, at least on occasion.

  5. Ah, Bu$hitler, yes. Interesting that a number of lefties turned to Bush a little while back to support the GZ mosque. You know, those who see demons in the Bush administration aren't much different than those who see commies in the Obama administration, or who think Obama himself is a Muslim "Manchurian candidate". Each to their own, I guess.

    By the way, Rand's intolerance of religion was actually one of her defects -- and I say that as an atheist myself.

  6. Well, that's not what I said, is it--. I mention Bush's reliance on the Book of Rev. as evidence of the relation of fundamentalist judeo-christianity to political policies of the GOP (and some demos as well), including military objectives --and that was evident during the Bushco years.

    I just read an article in the LA Times regarding soldiers being ordered by officers to attend christian music events, and facing penalties for not doing so. There are many other instances. Many military brass in all branches have religious connections, and I'd wager they're primarily of the WASP-baptist bonehead variety, with a few catholics, jews, and smattering of other faiths.

    Rand's secularism, however shallow, rates as one of the few things I admire about her philosophy-lite. Actually unbeknownst to many conservatives, she, ala Locke and Jefferson, also rejected the Divine right of Kings, which is to say...she rejected monarchy, bless her little avaricious heart.


You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>